TEHRAN -- Professor Felix Berenskoetter says that International theories “don't just explain”. Berenskoetter, who teaches at London University, believes that International theories “also try to tell us what the 'issues' in international politics are in the first place.” Berenskoetter made the remarks in an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency recently.

Following is the text of the interview:
Q: There are four major intellectual discussions in international relations theories: realism versus liberalism; behaviorism versus traditionalism; neo-realism versus neo-liberalism; and rationalism versus constructivism. What is the main debate?
A: I am not sure there is a main debate in IR; indeed some of those are not even debates in the strict sense of the term but people talking passed each other. That said, there are some important philosophical questions underpinning all major discussions, such as how international relations are affected by human nature and future uncertainty; to what extent ''reality'' matters outside the meaning we give to it, and how we conceptualize power.
Q: Why most of the major international relations theories failed to predict the global economic crisis?
A: Because (i) they did not understand how the banking system works, and because (ii) life always holds surprises you cannot predict.
Q: Professor Christian Reus-Smit argues that there is no longer a great debate over international relations theories. Do you accept this view? If that is the case, which international relations theories can explain the current issues in the area of international relations?
A: I would disagree (see my answer to your first question). That said, I agree there now are many theories out there focusing on many different issues and they don''t necessarily all participate in an overarching ''great debate''. Also, it is important to note that theories don’t just explain, they also try to tell us what the ''issues'' in international politics are in the first place.
Q: Constructivism is one of the renowned theories in the field of international relations. What are the main advantages of this theory in comparison to other world-class international relations theories?
A: It focuses on the formation of (collective) identities and what effect this has on international politics. The other major IR theories fail to do that.
Q: Some scholars assert that international relations is an Anglo–American discipline, but others claim that international relations has some roots in continental countries. What is your viewpoint about this division? To what extent do developing countries contribute to the discipline of international relations?
A: Certainly IR as a discipline has until recently been dominated by American-based scholars, many of whom emigrated from Europe and/or built their ideas about international politics on European experiences. However, over the past decade or so new voices have made themselves heard. As a consequence, we now see much greater pluralism in perspectives. Interesting questions and approaches come from (and are applied to) many different parts in the world challenging the Western bias underpinning much IR scholarship of the first 50 years. This is a welcoming development.
Professor Felix Berenskoetter teaches Comparative And International Politics, Identity in International Relations, Power in World Politics, The meaning/use of theory in IR, Concepts of identity, power, Politics of space and time and Critical approaches to security. He is also the editor of “Power in World Politics” published by Routledge